Xanderliptak
- Xanderliptak ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
09 March 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Η936631 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
(I haven't made such a report before - if there are procedural issues, do bear with me!) Earlier this year, User:Xanderliptak was banned following a discuss on ANI; a user with whom I have interacted before, but not in any particularly meaningful way, nor was involved in the least with the ban. I have considerable suspicion that the above mentioned User:Η936631 is the same person, although as we know there could be a possibility they aren't related, for the following reasons:
- Account creation time: the block was on the 7 November, Η936631's first contribution was the 14 January;
- Η936631's contributions show no indication of being a new user (straight into AfDs, edit summaries reveal knowledge of policy, for example) and no acknowledgement of any form is given;
- Pages (heraldry, for example, and American pages) in terms of topic similar; several pages (e.g. Emblem of Bahrain), http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_heads_of_state_and_government_by_net_worth&limit=250&action=history List of heads of state and government by net worth] edited by both accounts [[[FDR]] among Η936631's, Theodore Roosevelt among Xanderliptak's] ;
- The stated aim at Template_talk:Infobox_heraldic_achievement by Xanderliptak to migrate the uses of the template to another ("Emblem"), as carried out by Η936631 in this edit, this edit and this edit, and others.
I would welcome any input from more experienced users in this area because of my novelty in this area. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, the discussion wasn't for a full community ban. I'm not sure what position that leaves us in (not acknowledging "his" (as the case may be) former account could be a problem, no?. Help, please? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 21:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Confirmed that Η936631 is a match to Xanderliptak.
TN
X
Man 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
13 June 2011
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Dave Pritchard ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
This seems fairly obvious. Xanderliptak was originally banned by the community, with a set of restrictions imposed should he seek an unblock. A similar situation obtained on Commons.
This user is uploading multiple images by the same person, importing them from a blog which imposes licencing constraints incompatible with Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:WATERMARK, a bugaboo of Xanderliptak; he felt his signature should remain on all work and the licencing he forces on his blog indicates the same.
He has socked around his block before, and I only just happened to notice the addition of a Xanderliptak file on a page I hadn't removed from my watchlist. CU is needed, perhaps an underlying IP can be hardblocked. → ROUX ₪ 06:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit. Wish I'd seen the edits a few days earlier then. So what do we do? Block per the overwhelming sound of ducks? Ignore the fact that he's socking (again) around a community ban? → ROUX ₪ 17:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question: User:173.24.117.126 is an acknowledged IP that Liptak has used while logged out. Does this help? → ROUX ₪ 20:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The accounts in the archive are 
Stale, but this user is using the same ISP that I checked last time. There are no other sleepers, but there is other activity on the range, so I'm a little hesitant about IP blocking.
TN
X
Man 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Add behavoir and I think we have cleared it. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: Archiving due to lack of further action to be able to take in regards to the IP, per CU comments.
Steven Zhang
The clock is ticking.... 05:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
19 March 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Pratt232 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- JDF6574 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
CU performed by Alison - ruled likely, and confirmed that Pratt and JDF are the same SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Pro forma report, already bagged and tagged -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)